Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

EVA as a Financial Metric: the relationship between EVA and


Stock Market Performance
K. K. Ray
Associate Professor (Finance & Accounting)
Indian Institute of Management Raipur, GEC Campus, Sejbahar, Raipur, India
kkray@iimraipur.ac.in

Abstract
The present research study investigates the relationship between economic value added (EVA) and the stock
market performance of 36 publicly traded companies in India. The study attempted to justify the claim that high
EVA causes incremental gains in stock market. The daily stock prices from 2006 through 2012 were taken to
study the relationship between EVA and stock market performance of 36 Nifty stocks. EVA of firms were
compared with various accounting and market performance measures like ROA, ROE, ROS, CAPM Return,
excess market premium and others. Results of the study find little support to the fact that high-EVA firms lead to
higher stock market performance and shareholders value creation. The author viewed that stock prices are more
sensitive to growth expectation and these expectations are reflected in terms of higher stock returns as per the
whim and fancies of the investors rather than the EVA information and strategy.
Keywords: EVA, EVA and Stock Market, EVA & Indian Firms, Value Based Management, Stock Market
Performance.

1. Introduction
In recent times, the new financial performance measures have been given more attention as substitute of
traditional accounting based methods of performance measurement. One popular measure that has received
substantial importance in the economic press and academic literature is Economic Value Added (EVA). The
EVA is a technique for the measurement of value creation developed by the Stern Stewart and Company
consultant group (Stern, 1985;
Stern et al., 1995; Stewart, 1994). They argued that Economic Value Added is the financial performance
measure that comes closer than any other to capturing the true economic profit of an enterprise.
Stern Stewart & Co. guides many client companies in the world for implementation of EVA based financial
management and incentive compensation systems. This EVA based compensation system gives the managers
and executives a superior information and motivation to take managerial decision which in turn creates greatest
shareholder value in any publicly traded company. The firms method of creating shareholder value is to create
EVA: the difference between operating profit after taxes less the capital charges.
Many consultants and experts are touting EVA as the panacea for shareholder wealth creation and maximization.
On the surface, metrics such as EVA may lead to increased share value, but there is no evidence that financial
markets recognize and incorporate EVA into their share price valuation models to any larger extent than they
would include measures of NPV, earnings per share, return on assets, or any other accounting measures.
The usefulness of Economic Value Added as a new financial measure has been widely debated in the academic
literature. Biddle, Bowen, and Wallace (1997) emphasized that EVA is highly associated with stock returns and
firm values than with accrual earnings. EVA is theoretically superior to refined economic value added (REVA)
as shown by Ferguson and Leistikow (1998). There is a simple correlation between EVA or earnings and stock
returns as per the study of Garvey and Milbourn (2000).They suggest that EVA is reasonably reliable tool of
testing the firm value. Machuga, Preiffer, and Verma (2002) show that EVA can be used to enhance the future
earnings predictions of business units. Chen and Todd (2001) examined the extent to which EVA information
can explain the variation in stocks returns. They conclude that the variation appears to be attributable to non-
earnings-based information. Further. Paulo (2002) argues that EVA is just another piece of accounting
information, and like other accounting information. It has less relevant influence to stock returns and stock price
changes. Abate, Grant and Stewart III (2004) show that EVA can be a valuable investing tool to categorize good
companies with good stocks in the market.
Kramer and Peters (2001) used cross-sectional-time series data from the Stern-Stewart data base to investigate
the relationship between Market Value Added (MVA), EVA and shareholder value. They concluded that there
was virtually no benefit of using EVA rather than using NOPAT to explain MVA. With respect to changes in
MVA to changes in EVA and NOPAT, only 22 of 53 industry groups indicated a positive and significant (5%
level) relationship for the former and only 26 of 53 for the latter.
Studies in the food industry by Turvey et al. (2000), and in other industries (Bacidore, Boquist,
Milboum.&Takoretal, 1997 and Chen& Dodd, 1997; Clinton & Chen 1998) found that EVA offered no superior
results over accounting based measures. The relationship between EVA and shareholder return was generally no

105
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

better, and normally worse than the relationship between shareholder returns and other accounting based
measures. In the similar line, deVilliers and Auret (1997) find that EPS has more explanatory power than EVA
in explaining share prices for a number of South African firms. They conclude that there is no evidence of any
better result using EVA instead of EPS in share price related analysis.
West and Worthington (2004) studied the information content of some accounting measures like residual income,
cash flow, earnings before extraordinary items and EVA in Australian market. They established the findings that
the explanatory power of EVA was superior to the other measures investigated in the study. In contrary, Tsuji
(2006) found that traditional measures were better than EVA for stocks in Japanese stock markets. Kyriazis and
Anastassis (2007) had the same view on the Athens Stock Market.
Zaima (2008) created portfolios using EVA and found that stock returns for firms with negative EVA exhibited
higher returns than some firms with positive EVAs. This evidence of paradox about EVA and the stock return
was also recognized by Fu et al. (2011). They formed 10 portfolios and ranked from the highest positive EVA
firms to most negative EVA firms. They reported that returns of negative EVA firms are higher than for positive
EVA firms. They argued that this situation arise because of investors confidence in future expectations for these
firms.
The results of those studies indicate that EVA is less useful than other measures in predicting shareholder returns.
The Indian stocks are not exempted from this. The purpose of this article is to investigate the relationship
between EVA and share price valuation of Nifty stocks (non-banking & financial stocks).
The article proceeds as follows. Next section describes the EVA metrics used in the study. Subsequent section
explains the data and methodology and the last two sections enumerate the analysis of results and discussion &
conclusion respectively.

2. Theory of EVA:
Economic Value Added is a measure that goes beyond the rate of return earned and considers the overall cost of
capital. It measures earnings after the cost of capital and defined as net earnings (PAT) in excess of the charges
for shareholders invested capital.
Economic Value added (EVA) = PAT Charges for Equity
= PAT (Cost of Equity * Equity Capital)
The firm is said to have earned economic return (ER) if its return on equity (ROE) exceeds cost of equity (COE).
Economic Return = ROE COE
This economic return translates into EVA, where;
EVA = Economic Return * Equity Capital
The most popular alternative method of determining EVA is the excess of net operating profit after tax (NOPAT)
over cost of capital employed (COCE).
Economic Value Added (EVA) = NOPAT - COCE
Net operating profit After Tax (NOPAT) is a measure of income before noncash depreciation or amortization
charges, interest on debt, and any extraordinary charges or revenues unrelated to the current year's profits.
Capital employed generating these profits does not refer to the capital in terms of absolute balance sheet items,
but to the opportunity cost associated with using those assets. Therefore the cost of capital or the firms weighted
average cost of capital:
WACC = ROE* (Equity/Total Capital) + Cost of debt * (Debt/ total Capital)
Return on equity (ROE) would more likely be measured by the risk-adjusted market return required by
shareholders. Invoking the security market line equation from the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) suggests
that:
ROE = Rf + (Rm Rf)
Where Rf is the risk-free return on 90-day t-bills, Rm is the long-run market rate of return, and is the single
index measure of systematic risk.
EVA proponents claim that at all stages of production in all corporate divisions the EVA should be positive and
maximized. This maximised EVA would ensure that all internal decisions will gravitate towards the goal of the
business. It is not sufficient for a corporation to claim shareholder wealth maximization on earnings per share (or
any other metric) alone. This is because of their direct investments in fixed assets and working capital, and the
deferral of dividends to pay down debt. Since shareholders finance those assets and sacrifice, they should be
rewarded for doing so.
Other argument in favour of EVA is that it tends to identify specific idle assets or, from a portfolio of assets
identify those that provide the lowest economic return. Consequently, EVA can be raised by earning more
economic profit without using more capital, and/or investing capital in high return projects.

3. Data & Methodology


The literatures discussed above revealed that EVA might not provide any better result than some financial ratios.

106
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

In view of this the present study investigates 36 Nifty (Index of National Stock Exchange of India) stocks. For
each firm, 2009 fiscal EVA was computed and divided by the number of shares outstanding. In order to assess
the superiority of EVA metric compared to other common performance measures, data were also collected for
ROA, ROE and ROS for 2009 as well as the last 3 years average (2006-2009). Each company was then ranked
from 1 through 36 on each measure. The objective of doing so is to see that a consistent EVA should be highly
correlated in rankings with the profitability measure as well as the above efficiency measures.
In order to assess from financial market prospective that, whether EVA actually leads to improved share value
and the increased share value is highly correlated with EVA than other financial performance metrics, the
present study examined this with daily stock prices collected from 2006 through 2012. This period is chosen to
get adequate data points for the research and putting 2009 in the mid of the data series. The data for the study
were obtained from CMIE database. The banking and financial institution stocks are excluded from the list of
stocks undertaken for the study along with the stocks whose market data were not available for the study period.
The daily return was computed for each stock and the average daily rate was annualised to a 251 day yearly rate.
The diversified S&P CNX Nifty index is taken as the market for comparison.
The daily returns of stock i and the diversified market index Nifty m is computed using the following
equation (1). The single index measure of systematic risk () can be computed from the least square regression
mentioned in equation (2) below.
r it =( Pt P t-1)/P t-1 ..........................................................(1)
rit = t + *rmt+ ei ........................................................................(2)
The systematic risk () measures the systematic relationship between individual stock returns and the market,
and ei is an error term representing non-systematic variation in stock prices. Using this characteristic equation,
the total variance in stock returns can be decomposed into its systematic (non-diversifiable risk) and non-
systematic (diversifiable risk) components as:
i2 = i2m2 + e2 ..........................................................................(3)
Both these sources of risk are relevant to the assessment of EVA. It is argued that the high-EVA company should
have lower systematic risk and significantly reduced non-systematic risk as well. Hence, it is hypothesized
within the framework of CAPM that high-EVA firms have less systematic and non-systematic risk compared
with low-EVA firms. Furthermore, the expected market cost of equity computed by security market line (SML)
equation (4) should be lower for high- EVA firms if high-EVA firms have lower systematic () risk. This is
because; a lower risk adjusted cost of capital will lead to increase the present value of stock price.

Within the CAPM model, differential returns are well defined. But for the present analysis, the returns are
segregated both for systematic and non-systematic risk. Defining rit as the random return of the stock and r^
as the long-term equilibrium rate of return through SML equation. The difference, rit r^ would represent a
short run excess return, if it is positive and short run deficiency if negative. The total risk assigned to rit is i2 and
the total risk assigned to r^ is i2m2. The short run deviations measured by rit r^ must then be measured by
the residual risk of i2 - i2m2, which is the non-systematic risk. Therefore this excess returns is attributable to
the non-systematic risk of the company.
i2 - i2m2 = e2= Non-Systematic risk ........................................(4)
The above return and risk parameters would help in determining the coefficient of variation (CV). The CV from
market return can be
CVm = r^ / im ................................................................................(5)
The above coefficient of variation measures per unit market return, r^ caused by SML to the systematic risk. The
excess return CV can also be computed as
CVi = rit r^ / (i - im ) .................................................................(6)
It is expected that the high-EVA firms receive more attention from investors and represented efficient stocks in
the market. Therefore, the coefficient of variation based on market model should be greater than the CV on
excess return. This is tested across companies taken for the study. To measure this relationship, the following
ratio X is created.
X = [r^ / (rit r^)] * [e / im] ........................................................(7)
As there is greater risk efficiency in high-EVA firms compared with low-EVA firms, accordingly, X should be
higher for high-EVA firms.

4. Result Analysis
The research objective of the present paper focuses on two major support of EVA. The first support is that EVA
gives a better performance metric relative to conventional measures like ROA, ROE and ROS. The second
support in favour of EVA is that high-EVA firms show superior strength in the market place in compared to low-
EVA firms. To examine these, EVA per share is compared to accounting and stock market parameters in the
following paragraphs.

107
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

Table 1 represents the accounting measures of companies along with EVA per share and total EVA amount. The
firms are listed in the order of highest to lowest EVA per share. The highest EVA Company is Grasim Industries
Limited with EVA/ Share of Rs258.14 and Rs 23664.6 million EVA; while the lowest is Ranbaxy Laboratories
Limited with negative EVA/Share of -Rs35.24 and -Rs14812.3 million EVA. Table 1 reveals that ONGC has
highest EVA of Rs251035.8 million, but it is ranked fourth in EVA/Share because of the distribution of
ownership.
All the accounting measures taken for analysis are ranked in Table 2. This shows that, there is no correlation
between the EVA measures of performance with other accounting metrics. It is generally believed that the high-
EVA per share firms should have high ROA and ROE, while low-EVA per share firms have lower profitability
measures. But this is proved wrong as per the results presented. There is only one exception in the list is
Ranbaxy Laboratories, which reported the lowest ranking in all measures including EVA per share.
The significance of EVA/Share to other accounting measures presented in Table 1 is tested through a simple
regression. The objective of regression is to test the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between
EVA/Share and financial performance measures. The regression results are presented in Table 3. This indicates
that the coefficients are positive between EVA/share and the financial performance metrics except ROE. A
Rs1.00 increase in EVA/share implies an increase of 0.0180 in ROA and .072 in ROS. However there is a
negative relation between ROE and EVA/Share, where a Rs1.00 increase in EVA/share implies an decrease
of .0002 in ROE. The t-statistics and the p-values presented in the table confirm that the estimated relationships
are not statistically significant at the 95% level. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no
significant difference between EVA/share and the financial performance measures.
The results interpreted so far do not provide a definitive answer to the claim that EVA is a superior metric. The
estimated regression coefficients also suggest inversely that an increase in the accounting performance measures
can lead to higher EVA.
The main focus of the study is to investigate how EVA influences stock market performance. Table 4 represents
the comparison of EVA/Share to the stock market performance metrics of 36 stocks. Daily stock prices for each
of the firms were collected from April 2006 to March 2012, allowing three years before and after the EVA
evaluation in 2009. Subsequently, daily returns were calculated for each company's stocks and annualized. It is
reported that the mean annual return across the 36 stocks is 10.47%, with a cross-sectional standard deviation of
10.62%. The mean of the annual standard deviation (risk) in stock prices is 4.49%. In contrast, the mean return
of Nifty was only 10.39% with a standard deviation of 4.75%. There are 15 companies had returns more that the
market return and rest had lower return than the market. The average coefficient of variation (return/risk), which
finds the relationship between risk and return, is equal to 0.0261 for the group of stocks against the market
coefficient of variation of 0.0219.
Table 4 also presents EVA multiple a parameter similar to P/E multiple used in conventional analysis. The EVA
multiple or P/(EVA/share) measures the firm's stock price against the EVA/share. This ranges from a high of
188.74 for HCL Technologies to a low of 2.35 for Tata Power. The average P/EVA is 16.78, where, only one
company i.e. Ranbaxy Lab. has negative multiples.
This group of stocks are fairly correlated with market portfolio. The CAPM beta coefficient results range from a
high of only 1.63 for Jaiprakash Associates and a low of 0.45 for Sun Pharmaceutical with a mean of 0.94. There
are 15 companies have beta value more than the market beta i.e. 1. Hence all in terms of the market model, the
equilibrium long-term returns of these stocks are more than the market. These range from a high of 12.4% for
Jaiprakash Associates and a low of 8.63 % for Sun Pharmaceutical. A consequence of a high market correlation
is that the systematic risk of each stock is higher relative to non-systematic risk. For Jaiprakash Associates,
systematic risk is 7.73%, and for Sun Pharmaceutical it is less than 2.14 % with average systematic risk of 4.49%.
In contrast, there is low non-systematic (diversifiable) risk. The non-systematic risk for Jaiprakash Associates is
the higher with only 2.9% and as a group the average non-systematic risk is about 2.2%. The return and risk
analysis is further extended through excess premium for these stocks over the market return. This excess return
ranges from a high 10.27 % for Sun Pharmaceutical to a low of 34% for Reliance Communication. Majority of
companies are showing an excess return. Dividing excess return by non-systematic risk (equation 6) provides a
relative coefficient variation measure. Overall this measure indicates that excess returns are only 15% of
available risk. This reveals that if any investor accepts the non-systematic risk, he would only expect a return of
15% to that risk.
In order to relate the EVA to stock market performance, there are two testable hypotheses need to be conducted
to justify the metric. The hypotheses are:
a) High-EVA/Share firms would realize higher returns and lower risk than low-EVA/Share firms.
b) High-EVA/Share firms would have lower systematic and non-systematic risk, and hence require a
lower cost of equity capital than low-EVA firms.
The ranking of market measures along with EVA/Share is depicted in Table-5. Like the rankings of accounting
metrics (Table 2), there are no visible patterns that would indicate any reasonable correlation whatsoever

108
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

between the EVA/Share and other market performance metrics. Grasim Industries, which was ranked first in
EVA/Share is ranked 32 in returns, 14th in systematic risk, 17th in non-systematic risk and 19th in excess return.
Ranbaxy Lab, which was ranked 36th in EVA/share is ranked 9th in systematic and total risk and 10th in excess
return. Bharti Airtel, is ranked first in excess return and Z value where as it was 15th in EVA/Share.
To decide if any relationship does exist, simple regressions were run with EVA/share being the independent
variable. These regression results are summarized in Table-6. The regression results are consistent with ranking
results, and under none of the regressions was a statistically significant relationship between EVA/share and
stock market performance found. In other words, claims by proponents of EVA that higher EVA leads to higher
stock market returns and a hence higher share value does not appear to be found, at least for this group of firms
included in NIFTY.

5. Discussion and Conclusion:


The results analysed above indicates that there is no sufficient confirmation about high-EVA firms will
consistently lead to higher book ROA, ROE and ROS and therefore no guarantee that higher EVA gets translated
into higher accounting returns. It is also tested that there is no significant difference between EVA/share and the
financial performance measures. The stock market performance and EVA relationships are also showing the
similar trend as of accounting metrics. The findings illustrate that there is absolutely no relationship between
EVA and stock market performance. This is in contrast to the EVA proponents view that the share price of high
EVA companies have led to higher share returns.
In conclusion, it can be stated that there are several reasons why EVA may not cause improved market
performance. Normally, EVA is based upon book value and asset worth, whereas stock prices are determined by
cash flow and growth expectations of the firm. Therefore, EVA does not provide full cash flow information on
which the stock market can act upon. Further the stock prices are more sensitive to growth expectation and these
expectations are reflected in terms of higher stock returns as per the whim and fancies of the investors rather than
the EVA information.
It is really difficult academically to dismiss EVA based on the findings of this study results. This study's aim was
to measure the claims of the EVA proponents for a small group of Nifty companies. It cannot be concluded that
EVA provides a superior performance metric, or provides increased share values. Any management tool that
recovers all costs, fully utilize the assets of the firm and focuses on value, must eventually provide adequate
return to the shareholders. However, the findings of this study do not support that. Therefore it is pointless to
expect that the value shown and created by EVA should reflect immediately in the stock market, which are
volatile in nature and affected by firm specific risks.

References
Abate, James A. Grant. James L., and Stewart III, Bennell G (2004), "The EVA Style of Investing", The Journal
of Portfolio Management. 30 (No. 4, Summer), 61-73.
Bacidore, J.M., Boquist J.A.. Milbourn T.. & Thakor A.V. (1997). The Search for the best Financial
Performance Measure. Financial Analysts Journal, 52(3), 11-20.
Biddle, Gary C, Boweii, Robert M., and Wallace, James S.(1997), "Does EVA Beat Earnings? Evidence on
Associations with Stock Returns and Firm Values," Journal of Accounting and Economics 24 (No. 3, December).
301-337.
Chen, S., & Dodd, J.L. (1997). Economic value added (EVA (TM)): An empirical examination of a new
corporate performance measure. Journal of Managerial Issues. Fall. 318-333.
Chen, Shimin and Todd, James L. (2001), "Operating Income. Residual Income and EVATM: Which Metric is
More Value Relevant? Journal of Managerial Issues 13 (No. 1. Spring). 65-86.
Clinton. B.D., & Chen, S. (1998). Do new performance measures measure up? Management Accounting,
October, 38-43.
deViiliers. J.U., & Auret, C.J. (1997). A comparison of EPS and EVA as explanatory variables for share price.
Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 22(August), 47-63
Ferguson, Robert and Leistikow, Dean, (1998), "Search for the Best Financial Performance Measure: Basics are
Better, Financial Analysts Journal54 (No. I. January-February), 81-86.
Fu, R., Leong, K., & Zaima, K. J. (2011). Negative EVA And Value: A Paradox? Journal of Academy of
Business and Economics, 11, 128-138.
Garvey, Gerald T. and Milbourn, Todd D. (2000), "EVA versus Earnings: Does It Matter Which Is More Highly
Correlated With Stock Returns?" Journal of Accounting Research 38. 209-246.
Kramer, J.K.. & Peters. J.R. (2001). An inter-industry analysis of economic Value added as a proxy for market
value. Journal of Applied Finance, 11 (2), 41-49.
Kyriazis D. and Anastassis Ch. (2007), The validity of the economic value added approach: an empirical
application European Financial Management, Vol.13, No.1, pp. 71-100

109
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

Machuga. Susan M.. Preiffer. Ray J. Jr. and Verma. Kiran. (2002). "Economic Value Added. Future Accounting
Earnings, and Financial Analysts' Earnings Per Share Forecasts," Review of Quantitative Finance and
Accounting 18 (No. I, January). 59-73.
Paulo. Stanley. (2002). "Operating Income, Residual Income and EVA: Which Metric Is More Value Relevant
A Comment." Journal of Managerial Issues 14 (No. 4, Winter), 500-506.
Stern, J. (1985). Acquisition, pricing, and incentive compensation. Corporate Accounting, 3(2), 2631.
Stern, J., Stewart, G. B., & Chew, D. H. (1995). The EVA Financial Management System. Journal of Applied
Corporate Finance, 8(2), 3246.
Stewart. G. Bennett III. (1991), "The Quest for Value," New York. NY. Harper Business.
Stewart, G. B. (1994). EVA: Fact or fantasy. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 7(2), 7184.
Tsuji Ch. (2006), Does EVA beat earnings and cash flow in Japan? Applied Financial Economics, pp. 1199-
1216
Turvey, C, Lake, L., van Duren, E., & Sparling, D. (2000). The relationship between economic value added and
the stock market performance of agribusiness firms. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 16(4), 399-416.
West T. and Worthington A. (2004), Australian evidence concerning the information content of economic value
added, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No.2, pp. 201-224.
Zaima J. K. (2008) Portfolio Investing with EVA, Journal of Portfolio Management, vol. 34(3, Spring) p. 34-
40

TABLE-1: EVA and Financial Performance Metrics


Ran Company Name CNX NIFTY EVA/Share EVA(In Millions ROA ROA ROE ROE ROS ROS
k SYMBOL (Rs) Rs) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
2009 2009 2009 3-Year 2009 3-Year 2009 3-Year
1 Grasim Industries GRASIM 258.14 23664.6 15.92 21.71 18.71 25.74 21.13 24.17
2 Reliance Industries RELIANCE 144.85 227964.2 10.20 14.38 15.69 21.87 16.12 16.37
3 Jindal Steel & Power JINDALSTEL 138.33 21393.4 18.41 18.23 33.53 35.19 28.99 32.11
4 Oil & Natural Gas ONGC 117.37 251035.8 17.59 18.62 21.79 24.81 41.62 44.25
Corpn
5 Infosys INFY 111.55 63899.5 35.56 36.60 37.18 38.44 32.27 32.03
6 Bharat Petroleum BPCL 92.09 33296.1 6.52 8.44 6.18 13.06 1.74 2.45
7 Tata Steel TATASTEEL 86.32 63067.8 14.18 19.29 22.48 28.31 34.02 34.53
8 ACC ACC 83.65 15699.1 23.09 28.34 26.71 37.63 21.48 23.85
9 Hero Motocorp HEROMOTO 74.39 14854.8 31.97 31.00 37.77 37.18 11.60 10.74
CO
10 Reliance Infrastructure RELINFRA 69.73 15760.2 6.91 7.24 10.19 10.46 4.32 6.73
11 Larsen & Toubro LT 67.57 39574.4 15.75 14.76 31.71 29.13 10.52 10.23
12 Maruti Suzuki India MARUTI 67.38 19465.3 10.17 18.00 13.72 20.59 6.73 10.07
13 Sun Pharmaceutical SUNPHARM 63.88 13231.4 22.09 20.28 27.04 29.89 2.72 2.56
A
14 Bharat Heavy BHEL 61.08 29900.2 11.85 13.70 26.47 28.57 12.00 14.00
Electricals
15 Bharti Airtel BHARTIART 54.71 103861.9 17.89 19.59 32.35 38.25 32.83 37.50
L
16 Tata Power TATAPOWER 54.10 11978.5 9.84 9.48 10.99 11.79 15.15 14.86
17 Tata Consultancy TCS 48.60 47557.5 31.59 40.01 38.73 47.09 23.55 26.16
Services
18 Dr. Reddy'S Lab DRREDDY 43.95 7403.9 10.45 16.31 11.14 18.99 18.08 21.78
19 Mahindra & Mahindra M&M 43.68 12177.6 9.51 15.48 17.59 26.37 7.14 8.85
20 Tata Motors TATAMOTO 41.78 18792.3 5.72 11.77 10.08 22.94 2.57 5.17
RS
21 Reliance RCOM 33.85 69869.9 7.79 7.98 12.55 12.45 18.78 28.71
Communications
22 Siemens SIEMENS 32.86 11077.4 16.21 15.39 41.94 39.66 11.01 8.19
23 GAIL GAIL 25.97 32937.1 18.02 17.92 20.19 21.29 16.83 18.65
24 Sesa Goa SSLT 25.20 19835.4 46.46 56.90 53.15 56.47 47.61 49.96
25 Wipro WIPRO 25.12 36793.4 16.76 22.08 24.65 30.00 17.31 20.49
26 Sterlite Industries STER 21.62 15320.1 8.22 9.99 9.09 12.74 5.48 5.76
(India)
27 Hindalco Industries HINDALCO 16.80 28570.3 9.28 13.12 10.83 17.77 14.89 16.70
28 Steel Authority Of SAIL 16.66 68797.2 19.91 26.62 24.13 34.53 17.34 21.99
India
29 Hindustan Unilever HINDUNILV 12.54 27345.9 40.50 34.83 142.68 103.01 12.90 13.15
R
30 Cipla CIPLA 12.02 9343.9 14.05 17.17 19.21 21.67 19.25 20.28
31 Jaiprakash Associates JPASSOCIAT 11.65 13791.6 8.26 8.41 16.95 17.45 28.42 27.10
32 NTPC NTPC 11.04 91069.7 11.39 11.81 14.40 14.42 22.55 26.46
33 ITC ITC 10.96 41371.5 26.04 27.34 25.45 27.06 20.94 20.55
34 Ambuja Cements AMBUJACE 10.96 16680.4 27.78 36.14 27.17 37.93 24.38 28.79
M
35 H C L Technologies HCLTECH 1.85 12390.5 18.95 20.98 29.75 29.99 25.74 23.61
36 Ranbaxy Laboratories RANBAXY -35.24 -14812.3 -14.71 2.36 -33.41 2.86 -40.70 -5.70
Average 54.36 42082.2 16.67 19.79 24.69 28.49 16.87 19.53
Standard Deviation 52.90 54563.6 11.26 11.04 24.73 17.01 14.62 12.16

110
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

TABLE-2: Ranking of EVA/Share and Financial Measures

EVA/Share Rank Company Name EVA Rank ROA (%) ROA (%) ROE (%) ROE (%) ROS (%) ROS (%)
2009 3-Year 2009 3-Year 2009 3-Year
1 Grasim Industries 18 18 21 26 17 6 25
2 Reliance Industries 2 25 10 15 29 35 27
3 Jindal Steel & Power 19 12 18 2 18 22 4
4 Oil & Natural Gas Corpn 1 15 14 3 2 7 26
5 Infosys 7 3 17 6 6 34 28
6 Bharat Petroleum Corpn. 13 34 4 8 22 24 14
7 Tata Steel 8 20 29 25 24 26 22
8 ACC 25 8 7 33 16 11 1
9 Hero Motocorp 27 4 16 31 13 10 19
10 Reliance Infrastructure 24 33 8 13 7 15 2
11 Larsen & Toubro 11 19 22 4 4 1 5
12 Maruti Suzuki India 21 26 30 28 15 29 13
13 Sun Pharmaceutical 29 9 6 11 3 14 34
14 Bharat Heavy Electricals 15 22 23 12 33 33 8
15 Bharti Airtel 3 14 26 24 19 2 35
16 Tata Power 32 27 27 1 30 13 17
17 Tata Consultancy Services 9 5 3 27 10 9 11
18 Dr. Reddy'S Lab 35 24 1 29 34 31 24
19 Mahindra & Mahindra 31 28 9 19 21 18 32
20 Tata Motors 22 35 12 34 25 32 16
21 Reliance Communications 5 32 28 32 11 27 6
22 Siemens 33 17 2 16 1 3 23
23 GAIL 14 13 13 5 5 4 9
24 Sesa Goa 20 1 11 23 9 8 10
25 Wipro 12 16 31 21 35 19 15
26 Sterlite Industries (India) 26 31 33 18 27 21 30
27 Hindalco Industries 16 29 5 7 23 5 33
28 Steel Authority Of India 6 10 35 9 28 23 3
29 Hindustan Unilever 17 2 25 30 31 12 29
30 Cipla 34 21 34 35 20 20 31
31 Jaiprakash Associates 28 30 20 10 8 25 18
32 NTPC 4 23 19 17 26 17 7
33 ITC 10 7 15 14 14 16 12
34 Ambuja Cements 23 6 32 20 32 30 20
35 H C L Technologies 30 11 24 22 12 28 21
36 Ranbaxy Laboratories 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

TABLE-3: OLS Regression of Y = a + b* EVA/Share for Financial Performance Metrics

Dependant Variable Intercept Coefficient (t- R-Squared


(t-stat) stat)
((P-Value)) ((P-Value))
2009 ROA 15.6901 0.0180 0.0072
(5.7249) (0.4955)
((0.0000)) ((0.6234))
3-Year ROA 19.3569 0.0079 0.0014
(7.1816) (0.2201)
((0.0000)) ((0.8271))
2009 ROE 24.6974 -0.0002 0.0000
(4.0895) (-0.0021)
((0.0003)) ((0.9983))
3 YRS-ROE 28.7244 -0.0043 0.0002
(6.9136) (-0.0786)
((0.0000)) ((0.9378))
2009 ROS 12.9557 0.0720 0.0678
(3.7568) (1.5729)
((0.0006)) ((0.1250))
3 YRS-ROS 17.1912 0.0430 0.0350
(5.8938) (1.1113)
((0.0000)) ((0.2742))

111
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

TABLE-4: EVA/Share and Stock Market Performances


RANK STOCK STANDA STANDA CA CA EXCESS SYSTE NON- EXCESS CAPM
RD RD PM PM MKT MATIC SYSTEMAT RETURN/ RETURN/
IC
EVA/S Company CV P/EV RETUR DEVIATI DEVIATI RO PREMI RISK RISK NON- SYSTEMAT Z-
HARE Name A N (%) ON (%) ON (%) E UM SYSTE. IC RISK VAL
RISK UE
1 Grasim 1.091 9.077 0.02766 0.02534 6.35966 0.80 0.09 -0.07001 0.01572 0.01987 -3.52259 6.21406 -
Industries 78 24 514 767 1.7640
6
2 Reliance 7.023 7.066 0.18640 0.02654 6.66180 1.13 0.10 0.07805 0.02224 0.01449 5.38633 4.87286 0.9046
Industries 21 14 912 836 7
3 Jindal Steel & 12.82 4.431 0.47810 0.03729 9.36003 1.28 0.11 0.36509 0.02507 0.02760 13.22696 4.50691 0.3407
Power 084 60 449 301 4
4 Oil & Natural 2.333 2.478 0.05729 0.02455 6.16197 0.90 0.10 -0.04347 0.01760 0.01711 -2.54029 5.72410 -
Gas Corpn. 57 76 172 076 2.2533
3
5 Infosys Ltd. 6.698 22.93 0.14830 0.02214 5.55697 0.70 0.09 0.05371 0.01384 0.01728 3.10776 6.83635 2.1997
35 874 873 458 7
6 Bharat 2.424 6.258 0.06709 0.02767 6.94510 0.57 0.09 -0.02328 0.01127 0.02527 -0.92116 8.02147 -
Petroleum 69 52 712 037 8.7079
Corpn. 9
7 Tata Steel 1.414 6.234 0.04989 0.03527 8.85258 1.36 0.11 -0.06562 0.02660 0.02316 -2.83385 4.34228 -
53 93 273 551 1.5322
9
8 ACC 2.350 10.55 0.05990 0.02549 6.39795 0.79 0.09 -0.03731 0.01544 0.02028 -1.83926 6.29686 -
12 471 083 721 3.4235
8
9 Hero Motocorp 5.304 22.72 0.12070 0.02275 5.71086 0.51 0.08 0.03247 0.00996 0.02046 1.58711 8.85720 5.5807
81 556 030 823 3
10 Reliance 0.535 14.61 0.02112 0.03943 9.89640 1.52 0.12 -0.09950 0.02972 0.02591 -3.84026 4.05877 -
Infrastructure 76 259 242 062 1.0569
0
11 Larsen & 6.991 24.28 0.19490 0.02788 6.99667 1.11 0.10 0.08717 0.02185 0.01730 5.03733 4.92959 0.9786
Toubro 83 367 947 773 1
12 Maruti Suzuki 2.752 19.69 0.06843 0.02486 6.23971 0.78 0.09 -0.02865 0.01536 0.01955 -1.46593 6.32075 -
India 53 177 679 708 4.3117
8
13 Sun 8.366 5.247 0.18898 0.02259 5.66981 0.44 0.08 0.10269 0.00878 0.02081 4.93384 9.83006 1.9923
Pharmaceutical 14 37 969 629 8
Inds.
14 Bharat Heavy 4.488 7.457 0.11793 0.02627 6.59491 1.00 0.10 0.01382 0.01965 0.01744 0.79226 5.29852 6.6878
Electricals 54 42 660 412 6
15 Bharti Airtel 3.923 6.164 0.10486 0.02672 6.70776 0.88 0.10 0.00449 0.01736 0.02032 0.22106 5.78079 26.150
61 96 938 036 15
16 Tata Power Co. 5.824 2.354 0.16539 0.02840 7.12751 0.93 0.10 0.06351 0.01829 0.02172 2.92330 5.57128 1.9058
24 16 677 188 2
17 Tata 7.145 15.71 0.18038 0.02524 6.33585 0.84 0.09 0.08137 0.01654 0.01907 4.26654 5.98719 1.4032
Consultancy 86 672 716 901 9
Services
18 Dr. Reddy'S 7.692 27.68 0.16714 0.02173 5.45407 0.46 0.08 0.08031 0.00911 0.01973 4.07079 9.53565 2.3424
Laboratories 03 877 645 683 6
19 Mahindra & 5.321 12.59 0.15774 0.02964 7.44085 1.00 0.10 0.05379 0.01955 0.02228 2.41386 5.31665 2.2025
Mahindra 09 272 164 396 5
20 Tata Motors 1.707 3.766 0.05481 0.03210 8.05687 1.11 0.10 -0.05266 0.02170 0.02366 -2.22612 4.95342 -
47 38 142 747 2.2251
4
21 Reliance - 5.611 -0.22364 0.03634 9.12096 1.34 0.11 -0.33872 0.02634 0.02504 -13.52955 4.36933 -
Communications 6.154 11 923 508 0.3229
31 5
22 Siemens 2.455 19.77 0.07413 0.03019 7.57675 1.01 0.10 -0.03014 0.01974 0.02284 -1.31971 5.28139 -
80 704 134 427 4.0019
3
23 GAIL 6.141 15.80 0.15815 0.02575 6.46358 0.78 0.09 0.06105 0.01537 0.02066 2.95469 6.31714 2.1380
28 860 740 710 1
24 Sesa Goa 8.618 12.41 0.30655 0.03557 8.92739 1.02 0.10 0.20175 0.02007 0.02936 6.87049 5.22219 0.7600
92 894 805 480 9
25 Wipro 2.800 15.05 0.07347 0.02623 6.58393 0.90 0.10 -0.02740 0.01767 0.01939 -1.41313 5.70885 -
91 784 510 087 4.0398
7
26 Sterlite 3.565 8.100 0.13420 0.03764 9.44688 1.39 0.11 0.01770 0.02721 0.02601 0.68063 4.28236 6.2918
Industries 75 53 363 650 0
(India)
27 Hindalco 1.271 9.284 0.04320 0.03398 8.52789 1.25 0.11 -0.06871 0.02441 0.02363 -2.90726 4.58525 -
Industries 60 79 033 192 1.5771
7
28 Steel Authority 4.057 11.22 0.14223 0.03505 8.79790 1.35 0.11 0.02705 0.02640 0.02306 1.17321 4.36293 3.7187
Of India 85 848 240 518 9
29 Hindustan 0.220 21.18 0.00463 0.02098 5.26705 0.55 0.08 -0.08509 0.01087 0.01795 -4.74091 8.25324 -
Unilever 65 134 690 972 1.7408
6
30 Cipla 1.562 25.67 0.03382 0.02164 5.43209 0.55 0.08 -0.05599 0.01092 0.01868 -2.99677 8.22237 -
57 348 951 981 2.7437
4
31 Jaiprakash 1.721 10.95 0.07423 0.04311 10.81979 1.62 0.12 -0.04974 0.03176 0.02915 -1.70648 3.90347 -
Associates 90 151 686 397 2.2874
3
32 NTPC 3.114 18.27 0.07164 0.02300 5.77348 0.81 0.09 -0.02640 0.01594 0.01658 -1.59208 6.14927 -
57 364 671 804 3.8624
1
33 ITC 5.590 12.57 0.12048 0.02155 5.40929 0.65 0.09 0.02763 0.01278 0.01735 1.59228 7.26394 4.5619
68 945 485 286 6
34 Ambuja 2.470 10.27 0.06448 0.02610 6.55005 0.76 0.09 -0.03182 0.01488 0.02144 -1.48457 6.47033 -
Cements 85 055 243 630 4.3583
7
35 H C L 2.366 188.7 0.07367 0.03113 7.81268 0.98 0.10 -0.02978 0.01924 0.02446 -1.21729 5.37571 -
Technologies 80 4764 580 345 4.4161
1
36 Ranbaxy 0.055 - 0.00162 0.02909 7.30097 0.73 0.09 -0.09395 0.01444 0.02525 -3.72026 6.62013 -
Laboratories 74 12.27 950 557 1.7794
079 8
AVERAGE 3.779 16.77 0.10472 0.02859 7.17606 0.94 0.10 0.00259 0.01844 0.02150 0.15058 5.99007 0.3820
79 880 439 212 6
STANDARD 3.306 30.56 0.10625 0.00579 0.30 0.00 0.10685 0.00596 0.00367 4.40072 1.53531 5.5818
DEVIATION 96 250 552 978 9
NIFTY 0.021 0.10390 4.89979 1.00 0.10 0.00000 4.89979 0.00000 0.00000 - -
21 000 390

112
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

TABLE-5: Ranking EVA/Share and Stock Market Performance Measures


EVA/SHAR Company RETU P/EV SYSTEMATI NON- TOTA CAPM CAPM CV EXCESS EXCESS.RET/NON Z-
E RANK Name RN A C RISK SYST L RISK -ROE -BETA RETUR -SYSTE.RISK VALU
E N E
RISK
RANK RAN RANK RANK RANK RANK RAN RANK RANK RANK
K K
1 Grasim 32 23 14 17 14 19 19 32 19 6 23
Industries
2 Reliance 5 26 28 29 28 31 31 12 5 1 15
Industries
3 Jindal Steel & 1 32 30 8 30 26 26 2 16 4 17
Power
4 ONGC 27 34 18 7 18 4 4 26 4 11 26
5 Infosys 11 5 8 27 8 8 8 7 7 3 9
6 BPCL 24 27 6 25 6 2 2 16 23 33 36
7 Tata Steel 29 28 33 32 33 33 33 30 35 26 20
8 ACC 26 20 13 36 13 24 24 23 8 22 29
9 Hero Motocorp 14 6 3 26 3 7 7 5 30 20 4
10 Reliance Infra. 33 14 35 5 35 11 11 33 13 14 19
11 Larsen & 3 4 27 1 27 6 6 11 34 5 14
Toubro
12 Maruti Suzuki 23 9 11 2 11 32 32 20 12 23 33
India
13 Sun Pharma. 4 31 1 30 1 9 9 1 27 7 11
14 BHEL 16 25 23 16 23 21 21 15 9 35 2
15 Bharti Airtel 17 29 17 20 17 12 12 14 1 29 1
16 Tata Power 8 35 20 9 20 25 25 10 6 36 12
17 TCS 6 12 16 3 16 23 23 6 26 16 13
18 Dr. Reddy'S 7 2 2 13 2 28 28 3 33 25 7
Lab.
19 Mahindra & 10 15 22 12 22 17 17 13 22 28 8
Mahindra
20 Tata Motors 28 33 26 24 26 34 34 28 18 2 25
21 Reliance Com. 36 30 31 4 31 15 15 36 20 18 18
22 Siemens 19 8 24 35 24 36 36 25 3 19 31
23 GAIL 9 11 12 23 12 5 5 8 25 8 10
24 Sesa Goa 2 17 25 28 25 18 18 4 2 17 16
25 Wipro 21 13 19 18 19 29 29 22 29 10 32
26 Sterlite 13 24 34 19 34 22 22 18 11 12 3
Industries
27 Hindalco 30 22 29 10 29 1 1 31 31 24 21
Industries
28 SAIL 12 18 32 33 32 10 10 17 32 31 6
29 Hindustan 34 7 4 21 4 30 30 34 28 9 22
Unilever
30 Cipla 31 3 5 34 5 20 20 27 15 13 28
31 Jaiprakash 18 19 36 15 36 16 16 29 17 34 27
Associates
32 NTPC 22 10 15 14 15 14 14 19 21 30 30
33 I T C. 15 16 7 6 7 13 13 9 36 27 5
34 Ambuja 25 21 10 22 10 35 35 21 14 32 34
Cements
35 H C L 20 1 21 11 21 3 3 24 24 21 35
Technologies
36 Ranbaxy 35 36 9 31 9 27 27 35 10 15 24
Laboratories

113
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.6, No.11, 2014

TABLE-6: OLS Regression of Y = a + b*EVA/share for Market Performance Metrics

DEPENDENT VARIABLE Intercept coefficient R-squared


(t-stat) (t-stat)
((p-value)) ((p-value))
Return 0.0823 0.0004
(3.2411) (1.2222) 0.0421
((0.0027)) ((0.2301))
Total risk 0.0293 0.0000
(20.8229) (-0.6669) 0.0129
((0.0000)) ((0.5093))
CV 3.0537 0.0134
(3.8700) (1.2753) 0.0457
((0.0005)) ((0.2108))
Beta 0.9483 -0.0001
(12.7086) (-0.0723) 0.0002
((0.0000)) ((0.9428))
CAPM Return (ROE) 0.1022 0.0000
(42.8165) (-0.0723) 0.0002
((0.0000)) ((0.9428))
Systematic Risk 0.0185 0.0000
(12.7086) (-0.0723) 0.0002
((0.0000)) ((0.9428))
Non-systematic Risk 0.0224 0.0000
(25.6645) (-1.3843) 0.0534
((0.0000)) ((0.1753))
CAPM Return/SYSTE. RISK 6.0175 -0.0005
(16.0493) (-0.1015) 0.0003
((0.0000)) ((0.9198))
Excess Market Return -0.0199 0.0004
(-0.7802) (1.2220) 0.0421
((0.4407)) ((0.2301))
Excess Market Return/Non- -0.7880 0.0173
Sys.Risk
(-0.7495) (1.2371) 0.0431
((0.4587)) ((0.2245))
Z-Value 0.3646 0.0003
(0.2674) (0.0178) 0.0000
((0.7908)) ((0.9859))

114
The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open-Access hosting service and academic event
management. The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the firm can be found on the homepage:


http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS

There are more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals hosted under the hosting
platform.

Prospective authors of journals can find the submission instruction on the


following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ All the journals articles are available
online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers
other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Paper version
of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES

Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/

Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open


Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar